I see a lot of people say "writing is so important," and I think what they mean is "I feel really smart/good when I write." And I think what they are experiencing is that they've been assembling ideas in their heads for weeks, and only when it's all come together are they ready synthesize that information at a higher level, and they mistake this synthesis for the writing itself (rather than the writing being a symptom OF the synthesis -- if they had tried to write a week prior they would have found it unproductive).

This is not true for at least me.

Let's say, I am making something concrete by putting ideas, thoughts, knowledge into paper. While doing it, I am finding gaps and mistakes and finding opportunities to correct them. But it is not limited to 'correction', it also opens newer dimensions and perspectives- ones that previously didn't exist in my conscious mind.

I consider writing as a tool of thinking. Another tool is brainstorming with a group, or any group discussion in general. These amend to your thoughts, make the existing ones more solid, and opens new direction, and unravels connections previously not accessible.

Read this essay by Paul Graham: Putting Ideas into Words [0]. And also refer to his other essays on writing.

There is also a great book by Paul Zissner: Writing to Learn. I suggest this book to people.

Writing, when done while learning works akin to teaching- one of the most crucial steps in so-called Feynman Technique of learning.

[0]: https://paulgraham.com/words.html

Just one personal anecdote: I definitely find contradictions or gaps in my thinking/knowledge when I write. Finding and resolving those deficiencies is what I point to when I say "writing is thinking".

Getting stuff written down makes me realise the weak points and the errors in my thinking which I know from experience I don't find if I don't write it down.

This is a really cynical take. People work differently and get value from different things. It’s probably safe to assume most aren’t virtue signalling about writing.

I disagree. Not sure how common this workflow is, but I write by putting all the different unsynthesized ideas down and rearrange them as the latent structure "reveals itself." At the end you have something synthesized.

Sure some type latent structure was there all along (thus why I put them down), but it wasn't necessarily visible to me, nor optimal, nor did it include/exclude all the right points. The need for iteration itself proves that the act of writing is actually doing the synthesis.

Sometimes I like to test whether I can actually construct or assemble a finished something in my mind from an inkling of a thought.

For example a few days ago I realized that I found it hard to reverse a word in my mind, even a simple one. Try for yourself, think of a word and then reverse it in your head with your eyes closed.

Some people might struggle with the above, some may find it doable in their heads, but most can agree that it's absurdly easy if you can externalize it to paper or a text editor at least.

I think you're right. I'll add on: there's a lot of thinking that does not need writing, and there's a lot of writing that needs no thinking. Deng Xiaoping and other greats wrote pretty minimally for their own thinking, if at all. Whereas many of us not-so-greats seem to knee-jerk comment without a single thought.

It makes sense for our age. Amid a thousand distractions, typing on the keyboard gives the illusion of getting a grip. Note-taking on my computer gives the illusion of a second brain. Ululating on the internet gives the illusion of sharing thoughts.

Instead of "writing is thinking", I prefer "thought precedes speech" https://inframethodology.cbs.dk/?p=1127; it fits the small human mind better though I've yet to learn it properly.

You need to add into consideration that laying things out in visual display provides cognitive support, reducing the effort to reason about more things. So writing out ideas really does allow you to reach a greater scope of synthesis.

it depends how you write.

often when I write an idea down, my "inner critic" process gets more activated upon seeing the textual representation.

thus I find gaps and flaws more easily.

not true for all domains, but many.

If they tried writing a week prior that would have realized sooner the gaps in the ideas they were assembling, leading to them closing those gaps faster.

[dead]